69 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 03 December 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Not lying, just the brain trying to make sense by filling in the gaps. It would explain why NDEs reflect the subject's beliefs.

The cease of all biological functions that maintain the organism's life.

It might, but in sure you are aware that nearly every experience is filtered through psychological and cultural bias. Even simple mundane things. Wouldn't the goggles people where be a better candidate for this. You also have to understand context. If One feels an all powerful presence, a Christian might call it Jesus, a Muslim Allah, or a native American, the great spirit. In fact it would more unrealistic and not fit with the human condition if there were only  one kind of experience.

Precisely, those functions have stopped and are restarted by doctors.

Edited by Seeker79, 03 December 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 03 December 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

It might, but in sure you are aware that nearly every experience is filtered through psychological and cultural bias.

That isn't quite the same as encountering your version of heaven, god, prophets. In some instances NDEs are totally contradictory between two subjects of different faiths.

Quote

Precisely, those functions have stopped and are restarted by doctors.

Not the functions I'm talking about that occur on the cellular level. Some one suffering rigamortis, decomposition, etc, is definitely not coming back.

Edit: Even if we had the technology, I suspect the "living" person would be effectively brain dead.

Edited by Rlyeh, 03 December 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[JGirl]

Rlyeh, on 02 December 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

As much as I'd love to believe the mind can survive death, the understanding of the brain won't let me.
It is quite obvious the state of the brain plays a big role in what we associate with the mind, consciousness, personality, memory, emotions.
If the mind can survive death, this implies the mind is not dependent on the brain yet affecting the brain can bring about anything from amnesia, mood swings, change of personality to total loss of consciousness.
How do believers in the after life resolve this conflict of polar opposites?

I can only come to the logical conclusion the dead are dead in mind and body.

i dont think the brain is the mind. i don't think the mind is the soul. three different things in my belief.

[Mr Walker]

SavageDragon, on 03 December 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I don't think that replying the informations means some kind of afterlife. I'm on the same line of rlyeh here (but just here)..

What if you lived since your born with an hypothetical device that could register all you did, thought and feel in your entire life? Sure, after your death somebody could access to this information and reply your experience, but your personal point of view, that compose yourself as much as the informations you carry.. wouldn't just be around to know and feel it. So it wouldn't make any difference for us.

Maybe it would be a nice way for people who lose dears to still interact with them somehow.. but that's just it.

If in the future we'll be able to carry the entire brain in a machine (ala singularity), that's another kettle of fish.

The assumption is that the memories and consciousness are relayed into a person or device which continues to experience and build on those.  So there is no loss of continuity or self awareness.  It, and therefore our sense of self, continues unbroken.

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 03 December 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

That wasn't the question.
Put it another way, if two objects are identical, are they the same object?

That is a false dichotomy
The answer is both yes and no.
If two apparently separate items are identical they are the same object, and not actually two objects. If two  identifiably separate items are indistinguishable from each other, then they are not the same object, even though  they seem to be identical..
That approaches the concept of connected photons.

But i do not understand the purpose of your query, or what practical diffeernce it makes. I already know my consciousness is not unique to me, or trapped within my host body, so I am not as worried as some about making a dozen or more copies of myself to enhance/extend my experiences, learning and knowledge /understanding..

[Seeker79]

SavageDragon, on 03 December 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Not 100% sure what you are asking me here, but I lurk this forum since some good time so giving your views, I assume you mean if a singularity "hasn't already occured"?

If that's the question, I'm not "so sure" but I couldn't know anyway.

Sorry... My thumb on an iphone and lak of editing precedes me I'm afraid. But I think i got it right.

If you are familiar  with the singularity, whatch the last bit of the documentary "transcendence man" where he believes the galaxy will awaken in a network of extreme galactic nano technological infiltration.  Glven the vast expanse of time and propensities in eternity, I have a strong feeling it's already been done times a billion.

And no.. You are right. It's impossible to know on an empirical basis.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 03 December 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

That isn't quite the same as encountering your version of heaven, god, prophets. In some instances NDEs are totally contradictory between two subjects of different faiths.

Not the functions I'm talking about that occur on the cellular level. Some one suffering rigamortis, decomposition, etc, is definitely not coming back.

Edit: Even if we had the technology, I suspect the "living" person would be effectively brain dead.

So, like what exactly. Im pretty familure with the subject in more ways than most. I never claimed that any " faiths " have any authority. On the contrary, if you havnt noticed, I am very atogonistic toward religions.  Though I understand deeply their purpose and beginnings.

So what happens if all that can be restored ( "the fifth element ")

Which leads me to your last comment.

This is incredibly surprising comeing from you. This implys a soul. If we had the technology to put everything back exactly as it was, why on earth would the person be brain dead.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 03 December 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

That is a false dichotomy
The answer is both yes and no.
If two apparently separate items are identical they are the same object, and not actually two objects. If two  identifiably separate items are indistinguishable from each other, then they are not the same object, even though  they seem to be identical..

No, they are the same type of object, but they are not the same object.
You're abusing semantics.

There are two indentical objects, separated by location, they are not in any form of quantum entanglement or superposition.
Are they the same object? It is a simply question. If they are indeed the same object, modifying one with modify both.

Quote

That approaches the concept of connected photons.

You're taking about entanglement, the objects in question are not entangled.

Quote

But i do not understand the purpose of your query, or what practical diffeernce it makes. I already know my consciousness is not unique to me, or trapped within my host body, so I am not as worried as some about making a dozen or more copies of myself to enhance/extend my experiences, learning and knowledge /understanding..

I guess that is the problem, you refuse to accept the demonstrable fact your consciousness is localized to your body thereby making it also unique.

Edited by Rlyeh, 04 December 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 04 December 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

This is incredibly surprising comeing from you. This implys a soul. If we had the technology to put everything back exactly as it was, why on earth would the person be brain dead.

Brain damage indicates a soul?
Somethings are not reversible. I doubt such technology will ever exist.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 04 December 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Brain damage indicates a soul?
Somethings are not reversible. I doubt such technology will ever exist.

I don't. If technology is allowed to proceed another few thousand years or Mabey less, we will most likely be able to have exact data of where every atom is in your brain is located, then things like self replicating nono bots will have the capability to put everything back together again.

If this is the case do you still think a person that "died" will not be themselves upon return of their exact material state?

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 04 December 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I don't. If technology is allowed to proceed another few thousand years or Mabey less, we will most likely be able to have exact data of where every atom is in your brain is located, then things like self replicating nono bots will have the capability to put everything back together again.

Assuming they know the structure of the individuals brain before hand.

Quote

If this is the case do you still think a person that "died" will not be themselves upon return of their exact material state?

Yes.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 04 December 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Assuming they know the structure of the individuals brain before hand.

Yes.

Of course some sort of detailed scan.

Really?!?!?!? That surprises the heck out of me. Why?

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 04 December 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Of course some sort of detailed scan.

Really?!?!?!? That surprises the heck out of me. Why?

Sorry, I missed the not. They will be the same person, if their brain is restored.

Edited by Rlyeh, 04 December 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 04 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

No, they are the same type of object, but they are not the same object.
You're abusing semantics.

There are two indentical objects, separated by location, they are not in any form of quantum entanglement or superposition.
Are they the same object? It is a simply question. If they are indeed the same object, modifying one with modify both.

You're taking about entanglement, the objects in question are not entangled.

I guess that is the problem, you refuse to accept the demonstrable fact your consciousness is localized to your body thereby making it also unique.

Science has already demonstrated that our consciousness, while a product of our organic host is NOT trapped in it. It is transferrable. replicable and able to be stored and retrieved. This is due to its nature as a form of "electronic" entity. It can be treated like all other forms of electronic recording. eg transferred, copied/dupicated, stored etc. The scientists working on this around the world put a timeline of less than 20 years on  having this fully operational/workable, but elements of it are already being demonstrated. When this is done there could be a dozen or more copies of your "unique" consciousness made, all indistinguishable from the others at the moment of transfer/replication.

It is a bit like a recorded song. While the object on which a song is recorded is unique, and capable of differentiation, who is to say which of the  actual songs heard on different records, tapes or computer devices is original or unique The human singer or synthesiser produced the first sound, but the songs live on long after that moment and even after the singer may have died.

In the case of a human consciousness the "song" is alive, and capable of continued learning, growth and evolution, once recorded..

Edited by Mr Walker, 04 December 2012 - 09:20 PM.

[Seeker79]

Mr Walker, on 04 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Science has already demonstrated that our consciousness, while a product of our organic host is NOT trapped in it. It is transferrable. replicable and able to be stored and retrieved. This is due to its nature as a form of "electronic" entity. It can be treated like all other forms of electronic recording. eg transferred, copied/dupicated, stored etc. The scientists working on this around the world put a timeline of less than 20 years on  having this fully operational/workable, but elements of it are already being demonstrated. When this is done there could be a dozen or more copies of your "unique" consciousness made, all indistinguishable from the others at the moment of transfer/replication.

It is a bit like a recorded song. While the object on which a song is recorded is unique, and capable of differentiation, who is to say which of the  actual songs heard on different records, tapes or computer devices is original or unique The human singer or synthesiser produced the first sound, but the songs live on long after that moment and even after the singer may have died.

In the case of a human consciousness the "song" is alive, and capable of continued learning, growth and evolution, once recorded..

Wow!!! I'm  Not sure I could articulate it that way... Information and sequence is what it is. It's an eternal smidget.